Noam Chomsky Talks About Ron Paul
Posted by Pile
(38271 views) [E-Mail link]
|Noam Chomsky is asked some questions about Ron Paul. His answers may surprise you...
I think it's safe to say, Noam Chomsky has has mirrored BSAlert's position on this issue from our Audio show #4:
I'm assuming you know who Ron Paul is. And I'm also assuming you have a general idea about his positions.
Chomsky: Here is my summary of Mr. Paul's positions - He values property rights, and contracts between people (defended by law enforcement and courts).
Under all circumstances? Suppose someone facing starvation accepts a contract with General Electric that requires him to work 12 hours a day locked into a factory with no health-safety regulations, no security, no benefits, etc. And the person accepts it because the alternative is that his children will starve. Fortunately, that form of savagery was overcome by democratic politics long ago. Should all of those victories for poor and working people be dismantled, as we enter into a period of private tyranny (with contracts defended by law enforcement)? Not my cup of tea.
He wants to take away the unfair advantage corporations have (via the dismantling of big government)
Chomsky: "Dismantling of big government" sounds like a nice phrase. What does it mean? Does it mean that corporations go out of existence, because there will no longer be any guarantee of limited liability? Does it mean that all health, safety, workers rights, etc., go out the window because they were instituted by public pressures implemented through government, the only component of the governing system that is at least to some extent accountable to the public (corporations are unaccountable, apart from generally weak regulatory apparatus)? Does it mean that the economy should collapse, because basic R&D is typically publicly funded -- like what we're now using, computers and the internet? Should we eliminate roads, schools, public transportation, environmental regulation,....? Does it mean that we should be ruled by private tyrannies with no accountability to the general public, while all democratic forms are tossed out the window? Quite a few questions arise.
He defends workers right to organize (so long as owners have the right to argue against it).
Chomsky: Rights that are enforced by state police power, as you've already mentioned.
There are huge differences between workers and owners. Owners can fire and intimidate workers, not conversely. just for starters. Putting them on a par is effectively supporting the rule of owners over workers, with the support of state power -- itself largely under owner control, given concentration of resources.
He proposes staying out of the foreign affairs of other nations (unless his home is directly attacked, and must respond to defend it).
Chomsky: He is proposing a form of ultranationalism, in which we are concerned solely with our preserving our own wealth and extraordinary advantages, getting out of the UN, rejecting any international prosecution of US criminals (for aggressive war, for example), etc. Apart from being next to meaningless, the idea is morally unacceptable, in my view.
I really can't find differences between your positions and his.
Chomsky: There's a lot more. Take Social Security. If he means what he says literally, then widows, orphans, the disabled who didn't themselves pay into Social Security should not benefit (or of course those awful illegal aliens). His claims about SS being "broken" are just false. He also wants to dismantle it, by undermining the social bonds on which it is based -- the real meaning of offering younger workers other options, instead of having them pay for those who are retired, on the basis of a communal decision based on the principle that we should have concern for others in need. He wants people to be able to run around freely with assault rifles, on the basis of a distorted reading of the Second Amendment (and while we're at it, why not abolish the whole raft of constitutional provisions and amendments, since they were all enacted in ways he opposes?).
So I have these questions:
Can you please tell me the differences between your schools of "Libertarianism"?
Chomsky: There are a few similarities here and there, but his form of libertarianism would be a nightmare, in my opinion -- on the dubious assumption that it could even survive for more than a brief period without imploding.
Can you please tell me what role "private property" and "ownership" have in your school of "Libertarianism"?
Chomsky: That would have to be worked out by free communities, and of course it is impossible to respond to what I would prefer in abstraction from circumstances, which make a great deal of difference, obviously.
Would you support Ron Paul, if he was the Republican presidential candidate...and Hilary Clinton was his Democratic opponent?
|Posted by Scriven Taylor on 2007-11-21 17:15:49
|LOL! Chomsky is NOT a libertarian. He is an international socialist. His remark about workers rights regarding a hypothetical contract is a lumbering strawman argument. Contracts signed under duress are voidable, and in most states, you cannot sign away your rights as defined by the state employment laws. Cheap...
Misinterprets the Second Amendment? What part of "shall not be infringed" does he not understand? I hope he is not saying that the subordinate clause explaining the need for the right somehow limits the right. That is intellectually dishonest. If you dont like the right to keep and bear arms, you should support repealing the amendment rather than perverse interpretations.
Noam then conflates eliminating federal government with privatizing all public works and eliminating all rights. He then throws in the laughable suggestion that Intel and Microsoft are not profitable and need subsidies for R&D!
Noam... you should lookup the definition of 'rights'. Rights CANNOT BE ENFORCED, only curtailed. His argument is disingenuous. Right/liberty is the ABSENCE of control. Owners CANNOT "intimidate" workers, and I don't know of a state that doesn't protect workers from being fired in retaliation. Noam just wants a bureaucratic apparatus to manage all industry. Noam Trotsky.....
As far as 'ultranationalism'.. HA! What country should work to enrich the citizens of foreign lands? . Ron Paul is for trade and negotiations with ALL nations. Benefiting America, as well as other nations. It would be 'meaningless' to call this country America if we are not soverign and subject to international governments - that would make the Constitution meaningless.
Social Security fails as a mathematical model. Allowing people the freedom to not be FORCED to participate in SS does not equate to the young people being meanies to the old people. SS will have to be subsidized because it has failed. Ending the foreign interventionism would allow us to afford it for the needy... Noam should read Ron Paul's positions before sticking his foot in his mouth.
The private property remark illustrates Noams opposition to property rights, the very soul of individual liberty. Noam makes the curious statement that 'communities' should have the power to arbitrarily assign property rights. That is to say that he has a COLLECTIVIST point of view.
Noam..... Individualism=individual liberty, property rights Collectivism=totalitarian control, all property owned by state. Or more simply Individualism=American ideals Collectivism=communism.
|I am shocked!
Posted by Barney on 2007-11-21 17:48:25
|Chomsky would not back Paul over warmonger Hillary?!
Since when did his socialist agenda trump the unjust killing of millions?
Even if true, would the world not be better off with an "ultranationalist" US than a brutal imperialist US?
I am deeply saddened.
|LibCap vs LibSoc
Posted by Big Brother 1984 on 2007-11-21 19:14:29
|It sounds like Noam is not fully aware of RP's positions, and is arguing against the standard "libertarian-capitalist" philosophy which dominates the US Libertarian party.
Perhaps Noam should take a look at a bill titled "The Employee Ownership Act of 1999" (there is a page about it on Wikipedia). It was a bill which was co-sponsored by Dr. Paul, which would have created a new type of corporation. This "Employee Owned and Controlled Corporation" (EOCC) would require that at least 50% of the voting stock be owned by employees, and that workers be allowed to vote on all corporate issues. And to provide an incentive for businesses to hand over the reigns of control to their employees (and to provide this new corporation an advantage in the marketplace), this sort of entity would be exempt from Federal taxes.
This is bill would have sought to bring about the Marxist dream of the workers "owning the means of production", but it would have done it in entirely free-market fashion -- through stock ownership rather than some sort of soviet bureaucracy.
See?... Even MARXIST can find a reason to support this guy. ^>^
I realize that this one piece of legislation probably isn't enough to completely seal the breach between the LibCaps and the LibSocs, but to hear that Noam would prefer Hillary to Dr. Paul is rather surprising.
Posted by Pile on 2007-11-21 19:16:32
|I love this one...
Misinterprets the Second Amendment? What part of "shall not be infringed" does he not understand?
So is that what the 2nd Amendment says in your opinion? It says "shall not be infringed?"
I love how you f*cking morons cut-and-paste stuff out of context to claim some superiority.
Your whole argument is based on intellectually dishonest reasoning. You accuse Chomsky of creating a strawman while you, yourself do it.
I think there is definitely some room for interpretation in the second amendment... if I were to paraphrase you in the proper context, it would be:
what part of "in order to maintain a well-regulated militia" do you not understand?
See? Then your dumbass, self-righteous rhetorical question isn't as meaningless.
It's one thing to debate whether the founding fathers intended citizens to be the militia and whether or not they wanted a permanent standing militia, and whether or not they'd still be in favor of the right to bear arms in a scenario where there was a standing army. It's another matter to mischaracterize the argument as a way to assassinate Chomsky's intellect and meaning.
We see what you did there, Mr. Scriven Taylor... If you want to be taken seriously, don't make such boneheaded, ignorant logical fallacies.
This is a classic example of why it seems virtually impossible to carry on a decent conversation with some of these bong-brained Ron Paul butt lickers.
Posted by Wernher on 2007-11-21 19:22:29
|After reading this interview, I must conclude that Chomsky is a Communist who wants the US destroyed to be then ruled by some kind of global government.
Posted by Cameron Davis on 2007-11-21 19:48:24
|Noam Chomsky had close to zero credibility before I read this, now he has even less.
He misrepresented Dr. Paul's positions on several issues and used hyperbole and attacked with absurd examples. Ron Paul is not as extreme as he made him out to be.
If you care about America, if you care about our children, you will vote Ron Paul in 2008. Study Ron's positions for yourself, don't take Noam's word for it, or mine.
Posted by Scriven Taylor on 2007-11-21 23:02:30
|What part of subordinate clause do you not understand?
The statement, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.", is not conditional. It is an absolute statement.
The SCOTUS has ruled that the only limitation is to not specifically allow weapons that don't have a military use. In the cse, a sawed off shotgun was deemed illegal because unlike a machine gun or assault rifle (infantry rifle), the sawed off shotgun is not a legitimate military weapon.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Posted by Scriven Taylor on 2007-11-21 23:21:23
|BTW... The founding fathers were explicit in their support of militia and a deep mistrust of standing armies. Not only from a civil standpoint, but a tactical one.
There is ample material on this. For someone with a strong opinion on the subject, you don't seem to know very much about it.
Posted by Jah Red on 2007-11-22 02:56:35
|Pile, I like your misquote on the 2nd amendment to to fit your side story.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
DOn't take my word for it look here http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentii
I will agree with the others it doesn't really seem that Norm has really read or understands what Dr. Paul stands for...
|who is a f*cking moron???
Posted by THUORN (email@example.com) on 2007-11-22 15:23:49
|"I love how you f*cking morons cut-and-paste stuff out of context to claim some superiority."
hey Pile it is these "f*cking morons" visiting and bothering to discuss things here at BSALERT(says alot about your audience)... if you dont like what they say then offer an opposing view or a better argument. but dont act like a f*cking baby throwing a hissy fit because mommy didnt buy you a g.i.joe.... because that is BULLSHIT!
Posted by THUORN (firstname.lastname@example.org) on 2007-11-22 15:35:59
|TOP 200 LIES told by CHOMSKY
Posted by Pile on 2007-11-22 18:37:38
|I welcome debate and discussion. But when someone says something stupid like, "What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand" that's called bullshit. That's not honest, open discussion.
|chomsky lost me
Posted by mrmx on 2007-11-22 19:55:29
|I love some of chomsky's analysis but, as a 9/11 truther, I didn't agree with him that 9/11 wasn't an "inside job."
The problem is that regardless of ron paul, or not, the country has a hard time holding together. way too many people think the US is being run by a mob now and hillary doesn't seem to have enough charisma to restore people's trust.
unfortunately, Ron Paul represents the rationality of the founding fathers: "that w/o britain, we'll survive" and, as a Paul supporter, I've reached that point of thinking, "w/o government, we'll survive."
|Drive-by-hit and run
Posted by Scriven Taylor on 2007-11-23 00:34:56
|Hey Drive By..... Go take remedial English and learn what a subordinate clause is before you make more of a fool of yourself.
What part of "Shall not be infringed" is hanging you up?
BTW.. did the ghost of Jefferson whisper in your ear that he was wrong about standing armies?
|Posted by Pile on 2007-11-23 15:19:46
|I stand corrected in my quote on the 2nd amendment.. but I wasn't actually quoting it in its entirety so this is another case of you all taking stuff out of context and then trying to accuse me of being a hypocrite.
I took part of the 2nd amendment out of context myself, but I admitted doing so to demonstrate to Scriven Taylor, the lameness of his argument.
By the way, MY ARGUMENT APPARENTLY IS LEGITIMATE because the Supreme Court of the United States is currently addressing this very issue.
Now if the 2nd amendment was that obvious, would the SCOTUS be attempting to interpret it?
You guys don't have a leg to stand on here.
Suffice to say, if anyone says anything critical of Ron Paul, you RonBots have a hissy fit. That doesn't mean you're right about anything.
|And the last of Chomsky's credibility...
Posted by Aaron Wright on 2007-11-26 13:54:01
|...goes out the window.
Honestly I think there is lots of room for debate on socialist/free market politics. And I do not support everything Ron Paul says here. Chomsky makes many good points.
But the last line finishes him in my book.
Ron Paul is, regardless of whether you agree with him or not, principled, honest and consistent. He has held the same positions for decades.
Hillary is self-serving, self-contradicting, unpredictable and a war-monger. She says she will stop the war and then preaches to AIPAC for nuclear war on Iran...you can't even begin to go into how much dirty laundry and lies litter Hillary's floor. Hillary's puppet masters are the same as Bush's and Noam Chomsky knows this.
Sorry Chomsky, I am done with you.
Posted by Glis on 2007-11-26 15:40:02
|Isn't this one of the only government programs to have a surplus in the last decade? If it was in such bad shape, why did we disperse the surplus instead of reinvesting it? Throwing government money into the streets, because apparently it boosts the economy, is about as brilliant as basing the economy on comsumerism, as opposed to production.
|The Triumph of Conseravtism
Posted by heatkernel on 2007-11-26 18:35:17
|Hi, I am not an anarcho-capitalist or libertarian, per se, but...on one rather important point, at least you guys and Chomsky are wrong, and Scott Horton/Ron Paul are right. The regulation of the "Progressive" era, 1900-16, was undertaken under the tutelage of big business and enacted for their benefit. The impression that the regulation was anti-trust, reformist, and pro-consumer was cynically fostered for political benefit by politicians and certain journalists of the time, and continues to be fostered in standard school histories for the benefit of the powers that be. Gabriel Kolko, in his book _The Triumph of Conservatism_ demonstrated all of the above over 40 years ago through extensive documentation and decisive analysis, and his conclusions are pretty much accepted in toto by professional historians. They have not percolated out to the wider public, however.
Posted by Nicholas on 2007-11-27 19:45:14
|What is the source for this article?
Posted by Clint on 2007-11-29 14:13:56
|I have great respect for Noam Chomsky but I am supporting Ron Paul. While Chomsky isn't a fan of Ron Paul's right-libertarianism he's isn't a fan of Hillary Clinton's neocon-lite politics either. If you have read Chomsky he slams President Clinton as an imperialist and a corporate shill. I highly doubt he is supporting Hillary Clinton, I assume he is either voting for Kucinich or a third party as he did in 2004 (Nader).
|Posted by Gene on 2008-01-08 22:50:21
|Actually, Chomsky did not support Nader in 2004. He basically said that the Bush administration was so vicious and unlawful that he would support the lesser of 2 evils - Kerry. He, of course, stated it a lot better than I did. He didn't 'support' Kerry, but advocated voting for him as an important lesser of evils. Also - if you read his quote - he did NOT state that he would support Clinton over Ron Paul. He stated that he would not support Ron Paul, over her. There is a logical difference.
Posted by Samantha on 2008-01-20 07:45:51
|It's embarrassing how poor the reasoning skills of so many people are. If Chomsky says he will not support Ron Paul, that does not mean he will support Hillary.
There is probably no hope to rehabilitate the intellect of any person who automatically concludes that NOT supporting Paul inherently means supporting Hillary.
Posted by economic ignorance on 2008-01-31 02:14:19
|Wow, that's a lot of lies. What truth does he tell? It appears to me that most people have inconsistencies and that perhaps a reason for the majority of Chompsky's is misunderstanding and context. Some of it may be due to his use of hyperbole. In any case, it seems much of what is written by him (and others) doesn't appear to be as cut and dried as we'd like to think; there is much room for interpretation. What I would like to think is: what is at the heart of his matter? If I am quoted that I said someone murdered 50 people and the real number was 20, I have to ask what the relevance is to denounce my "lie". Something about the spirit of the law here. What I view this as though, is what it is: bad research on my part and perhaps a certain amount of laziness. In any case, I don't know a lot about these things, just an opinion that if Chompsky and the guy who wrote these things were to have a tete a tete in a spirit of truth that the list of "lies" would be shortened and perhaps titled lies would be titled "opinions"..?
|lol, ur done
Posted by bootleg42 on 2008-02-05 14:46:46
|It's funny the way you right-wing free-market libertarians have spamed the internet over the past year. Time will pass and your attempt will fail. Plus with that whole newsletter thing and the way the neo-fascists of the country love him (check a site called stormfront), it'll be impossible for him to get elected because poor inner city people will see that and will raise hell if Paul was go get close to power. And most of you spoiled middle class suburban kids will deficate yourselves if that happens.
Ron Paul is a free market capitalist, which means oppression for inner city people and working people all over the country. And do you think his support for "states rights" will do colored people any good in the southern states (I don't have to remind you of that, all that history). And for those of you who said that government helps corporations, it is true with many laws but at the same time many restrictions are made by the government to help poorer people (laws pushed by labor movements). Why do you think the corporations and private business lobby so hard to get rid of those regulations in the first place??? lol. They lobbied Reagan REALLY hard and Reagan (as Chomsky explained many times before) simply promised them that he would never enforce many labor laws (as he went on to do).
Plus the way many of you said that just because he doesn't support Paul, it means he supports Hilary is stupid and illogical. No where has he said he supports Hilary. He's bashed her and her husband as much as he's bashed you right-wingers. You all believe that people who don't like Paul like Hilary by logic???? Your logic seems almost the same as the neocons in 2004 (if your not voting for Bush, your voting for terror, etc).
Both Democrats and Republicans are horrible capitalist anti-working class parties. The poor and working class will create their own movement in the future to battle them, and it'll be based on labor.
And Chomsky is a REAL libertarian, meaning he supports a stateless society where the workers run what they work with. If you want examples of what Chomsky likes, look at the Paris Communes and look at Catalonia Spain in 1936 during the Spanish Civil war.
|capitalism is anti human
Posted by one big dong on 2008-03-19 10:23:51
|LibCap v/s LibSoc
Depends on what school of thought you come from. I personally believe in ideal socialism. I know its hard to achieve but so is democracy. Only thing that is perfectly achievable is capitalism because it is natural to all life forms. And no democracy (and liberty for that matter) can thrive in capitalism.
|Posted by Le Cleyre on 2008-04-27 19:37:49
|Chompsky is right to doubt trickle down economics and corporate self-regulation.Google and Yahoo are supporting Paul for good reasons-freedom of speech, but there are less scrupulous players out there. Ron Paul though has the most firm anti-war stance and pacifist-anarchists can find many of Paul's ideas appealing.But like Chompsky mentioned isolation from involvement in global issues through the UN is not the answer; Chompsky has serious concerns about democratic principles which laissez-faire policies could inhibit. I'd like to see a debate between Chompsky and Paul.
|Get a REAL Thought Here
Posted by Winghunter on 2008-05-11 08:04:31
|"Pile" is an unbelievable idiot without a clue...would love to meet him anyday.
"Boothead42": This republic would be better served as well as the "poor and working class" by concentrating their efforts on IMPROVING THEMSELVES instead of trying to set up a society that plugs a pacifier in their mouths from birth to grave.
There are many countries based on socialism. Save up the money for a ticket and take the slow boat outta' here.
Posted by Wellzy on 2008-06-18 19:08:55
|They are both men of great repute. I would like to see them have a debate.
I think it is pretty silly making up your mind re Chomsky or Paul just from this one Q&A (for those saying Chomsky has lost them). Some other sources would be nice first.
|Posted by Rik on 2008-08-12 04:29:19
|Chomsky makes the most ridiculous hypotheticals. "If a company offered a contract to a poor man etc" blah blah. If the majority of people in the US were poor in the first place, the business wouldnt be what it is today. He ignores the strides people have made the past 10-150 years. The guy doesn't even know what a Republic is. (Hah! a libertarian supporting social security.)
|Posted by SHF on 2009-02-12 07:29:02
|I know this is a very old posting, but I feel this should be cleared up. This chomsky interview is simply chomsky replying to a few questions on a blog on Z-mag. I saw people stating that they were "done" with Chomsky because he would not support Ron Paul if he ran against H. Clinton, but the thing is that Chomsky would never support either of them. He at no point has stated that he was supporting the democrats, so that should not be assumed. Chomsky is a libertarian socialist/anarchist and that is completely opposite of Pauls views. The fact of the matter is, if Paul was elected president, he would try to make severe changes that would deeply impact the accomplishments of our nation; and nobody should expect that Chomsky would support that. But rest assured, Chomsky is far more concerned with political equality then Paul is.
|Posted by WAB on 2009-04-11 18:45:12
|Chomsky is a full blown socialist and out of touch.
|Posted by tdldoux on 2009-07-05 20:07:57
|So what if Chomsky doesn't support Paul. Does that negate the value of either of them? Paul is the best thing going for us in congress. Chomsky has many great ideas to offer. If you consider the sheer volume of talking this man has done in all his years, he is bound to say something that is in error or offensive. Maybe he didn't like the fact that the interviewer was arguably trying to align Chomsky and Paul into one libertarian lot. Chomsky's defensive tone in his replies were unusual and I'm sure he can recognize the positives of Paul's movement, however, one little word of accordance with Paul's views would be stretched out of proportion and next thing you know "Noam Chomsky Supports Ron Paul" or something to that effect. Instead, like on this board people are denouncing Chomsky for not supporing their "man". Whether you like it or not, as it stands, we need them both.
|Why is this shocking to anyone?
Posted by Mick on 2009-08-30 17:25:30
|I don't know why what Chomsky said in this brief interview is so challenging to American Libertarians.
In order for humans to be able to exercise their freedoms they need resources for staying alive (food, shelter, medicine, clothes) and humans also need their time of day.
If the only way to get the resources to exist is to whore out your time of day to an owner then you are not free anymore. You have to work for a more powerful person in order to survive. This notion that you can 'improve yourself' out of wage slavery is basically bullshit. Americans desperately want to do that; small businesses are popular and the number one reason for starting one is cited as 'being my own boss.' But small businesses fail at an extremely high rate. Mom and Pop places can't compete with Wal-Mart and etc.
The government doesn't force us into this position and big government doesn't enable it. Big business does. If you are interested in real freedom for other people as well as yourself you should be pro-federal government under democratic control and against big corporations.
|Ron Paul is a wonderful Surrealist!
Posted by Sp0spo on 2009-09-26 22:15:48
|Ron Paul is like a living Ayn Rand who is in the US Congress. Ron Paul is like a fascist Alice in wonderland living in a fantasy/daydream that Ayn Rand helped him dream about.
In short, he mostly sprouts out red herrings that would lead to what Karl Marx wanted and predicted -- rebellion and revolution of poor people overthrowing the wealthy.
If you support Ron Paul, then you are supporting the demise of capitalism and capitalism hanging itself by its own rope. Be my guest.
Posted by che8dn3 on 2009-12-23 09:50:49
|I don't know wtf u smoke, but its got you all f'ed up. HR1277 full steam ahead. and the Marx statement? huh!! RP a fascist? HUH!!! THats just rediculus
|Posted by Frank Church on 2010-03-09 19:30:14
| Did you yoyos know that computers would not be a big ticket item today if not for government intervention in the economy? The integrated circuit, the basis for most early electronics was invented by a man who worked for Texas Instruments. The problem was the circuits were too expensive for public use so the military bought up most of them, eventually making them smaller and cheaper and able to go for public use in almost all electronic equipment, later personal computers.
The government, big government gave the tech economy the initial jump.
Let's also look at Bill Gates:
His father went to school on the GI bill. His mother was a school teacher. They were then able to afford to send Bill Jr to a good school, where he later was smart enough to later start Microsoft. Without that early government intervention, he may not have had the education to invent personal computer tech. Let's not also forget that the internet was invented by the military with massive pentagon funding. Arpanet led to the information superhighway. Again, government largesse given to corporations free of charge. There should at least be a government patent charge.
|To mr Frank Church
Posted by eeclayton on 2010-04-25 10:19:48
|Agree with everything you have said, kinda, but don't make out Bill Gates to have done all that!
He is a semi literate businessman who hasn't written a jot of code in his life and is responsible for the retardation of information technology as it is available to people like you and me.
I am kinda shocked you would say that he 'invented personal computer tech'.
|How do you know it was really chomsky on that interview?
Posted by chomsky on 2010-06-24 17:30:18
|I've read a lot of Chomsky's work and this particular interview does not read like him. I would say it is a fake. So how do you know it was really Chomsky on that interview?
|That Could be Chomsky
Posted by knownothing on 2011-05-13 06:28:53
|These answers are similar to his answers in this interview where he explains the differences between anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-syndicalism.
I also think he is right
|This is fake.
Posted by Oh come on... on 2011-07-30 02:22:40
|Chomsky did not write this, there's no way. I've been following him for a bit and he and Paul agree on a lot of core issues, although they are on opposite ends of the economic part of the political spectrum. There's no way this was written by Chomsky, it's nothing like his writing.
Someone please prove the source of this, prove to me that Chomsky wrote it.
|Twisting Chomsky's words
Posted by D Rickles on 2011-09-14 19:49:45
|I see a lot of people on here trying to twist Chomsky's words. He never said he would support Hillary over Paul. He said he wouldn't vote for Paul even if he was running against Hillary.
I like Paul too, but you over-zealous Paul fans are what turns rational voters away from him. Especially the first comment on here. Talking about duress when you are so clearly confused over the meaning. Neo-imperialism and neo-colonialism is sophisticated beyond simple duress, buddy.
This comment thread, for the most part, has been the epitome of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
|Posted by Minimal answers, no background... this is not Ch on 2011-09-14 22:08:35
|This is either HEAVILY edited, or not written by Chomsky. This article is BS.
|Posted by Anroo on 2012-01-06 17:26:29
|It is not 'chomskys school' of libertarianism. The term 'libertarian', like Democrat and republican, has been warped over the decades. Originally libertarian's definition was more akin to today's *social libertarian*, (ie: social anarchism) which is what real freedom looks like.
If you want to find out some key differences check out the Anarchist FAQ, it's available online.
Chomsky really shouldn't be dismissed before doing some thorough reading yourself, otherwise you're part of the problem.
Personally, I respect Ron Paul since at lest he means what he says.
|Well said Anroo and D Rickles
Posted by Exspectator on 2012-01-06 19:32:55
|It's interesting how supporters of Paul, who are supposedly so enlightened and informed and typically decry the mistreatment and misrepresentation of their spokespersons' views/positions will then turn around and do the same to someone who is completely at odds with said spokesperson/visionary (Ron Paul). Simply because you are a leftist and do not support Ron Paul, does not automatically make you a state-socialist/communist.
As anroo has pointed out, Chomsky is a libertarian-socialist aka anarchist. Anti-state AND anti-capitalist which consists of self-governance AND self-management and free association. (Anarchist FAQ is an excellent place to start as anroo pointed out) Libertarianism was never associated with Capitalism until the late 20th century in America.
While I'm not as anti-Paul as many other anarchists are (not just Chomsky), at the end of the day, he is still a capitalist and is NOT anti-state.
|Posted by Choam Nomsky on 2012-02-27 20:44:16
|This shouldn't be such a debate. These Ron Paul fans' response is typical but those trying to argue that Chomsky is not himself, making errors, or too defensive are completely wrong. This interview, though pretty insignificant, actually greatly and accurately reflects Chomsky's view on modern right-wing American LIbertarianism and he is absolutely correct. I don't find the train of thought incoherent: Ron Paul correctly identifies state and corporate tyranny but by minimizing governmental power completely and immediately, he dismantles many accomplishments of the labor movement in restrictions of the corporations. State tyranny is a slightly better alternative to corporate tyranny because the working class has some, though very limited, say. He is being pragmatic. Why does he then consider himself an anarchist? Instead of the government deciding what corporations can and cannot do, the power should belong to the workers, which is very fundamental to socialism. The power Chomsky invests in the government is merely applicable to modern problems as in idealism doesn't exactly promote action.
To "Oh come on...",
Clearly you have not been "following him for a bit". Read Understanding Power, and you'll find this is very real and believable.
Posted by chris_potter on 2012-03-05 10:48:53
|well said Choam. anyway, Chomsky has quoted John Dewey repeatedly.. Government is the shadow cast over society by big business. attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance. downsizing the government will only make it easier to bully the gen pop, and we are pretty badly ruffed up as it is. it is the one institution that we have a say in. is it a wonder its demonized by the powerful and made to be the patsy for rampant improprieties?
|Labels, 'ism's, and 'ists'
Posted by Orion Karl Daley on 2012-03-27 05:28:13
|I feel too many labels,'ism's, and 'ists' are used where perhaps comments could include more thought instead. Example, many might wish to think that FDR and his 'Economic Bill of Rights' was some socialist view. But consider, by virtue in the name of his party, at the same time Adolf Hitler's was construed as some form of a socialist.
|Noam's an irrelevant academic
Posted by strannick on 2012-06-27 16:07:28
|He attacks Paul's postions with extreme cases, then when he's pressed to clarify the implementation of his ideals he says: "it is impossible to respond to what I would prefer in abstraction from circumstances, which make a great deal of difference, obviously". Typical academics focus on abstractions, while Paul is in the trenches. Get back to your circuit tours or Ivory Tower, Noam
Posted by Carlo Tresca on 2012-08-30 09:35:31
|Libertarianism was a word used to describe the tail-end of Marxist Communism. The infancy of Communism is people working for a factory or construction firm seize that company communally for themselves, and they own, operate, and manage their craft. Communism in toddler/kid years would be the government dismantling private Capital and distributing it among the people. Teenage years would be the Federal government dismantling itself as wealth and property distribution are almost complete and rendered unnecessary, and it would move onto the State to localize what is needed, as needs vary from place to place (eg.Southern Cali to Northern Cali), and the adult years would be the dismantlement of the State, and now power is in the hands of local collectives, unions, cities, etc. The tail-end of Communism, or the Golden Years of Communism is LIBERTARIANISM. The complete eradication of all authority whatsoever because society is now able to function on the accountability of the individual and their respected community, workplace, etc. That is what Libertarianism ALWAYS meant, until Americans perverted the word. As a matter of fact, in the 19th century, when the Communist Party was on the rise, speaking of a Proletariet run, quasi-fascist (before fascism even existed) society, all the Traditional Socialists and Anarchists (before we referred to ourselves as Anarchists) coined the phrase Libertarian Socialist to show the public that our goal was to complete Marxs vision, whereas the Communist Party wanted to seize power and have the ex-Proletariat of the Capitalist system become the new enforcers of the "Communist" Regime (which is why Russia was never a "Communist" country, just an extreme form of Capitalism since it maintained a "Capital" and Federal control). You should know your history on Libertarianism, ESPECIALLY since you support Ron Paul......After all hes "sooooo Conservative" and determined to conserve traditional values, no?